PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v CHARLES FILGATE GILES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KIRBY ACJ, SAMUELS AP AND MCHUGH JA 25 June 1988, 25 June 1988 [1988] NSWCA 118 LEGAL PRACTITIONERS removal from roll — removal from roll in ACT — concurrent application to be restored there — prothonotary applies for removal of name from NSW roll — whether Court should delay its proceeding pending resolution of ACT application, held: (1) Having regard to evidence and admissions in ACT proceedings name should be removed from roll in NSW; (2) Whether later application for restoration of name should be granted if successful in ACT will depend upon merits and evidence of fitness then shown. The Court defends the public and the high standards of the profession in NSW. Kirby ACJ The prothonotary, who has the care and control of records relating to admission of persons as barristers and, solicitors of this Court, moves the Court by summons for the removal from the roll of solicitors of the name of Charles Filgate Giles. Mr Giles was admitted as a barrister of the Court on 22 July 1977. On 6 November 1981 his name was removed from the roll of barristers at his own request. On that date he was admitted as a solicitor of the Court. He remains on the roll of solicitors of this Court to this day. Mr Giles practised in the Australian Capital Territory. He was on the roll of barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of that Territory when, on 21 September 1984, a report was delivered to the President and Members of the Council of The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory by Miss Jean Sayer, chartered accountant. Miss Sayer reported on certain irregularities in the trust account maintained by Mr Giles. Counsel for the prothonotary has placed Miss Sayer's report before the the Court. The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, in Consequence of Miss Sayer's report, moved the Supreme Court of that Territory for an order removing the name of Mr Giles from the roll of barristers and solicitors of that Court. Those proceedings came before Blackburn CJ and Kelly and Gallop JJ on 1 March 1985. On 13 March 1985, that Court removed Mr Giles' name from the roll of barristers and solicitors of the Court. In the judgment of the Court, which has been placed before this Court, it is recorded on the fourth day of the hearing of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory that Mr Giles submitted to an order that his name be so removed. The matter has previously been before this Court when the question arose as to whether Mr Giles was aware of the proceedings. The Court deferred action in order to be satisfied that Mr Giles had been served with appropriate notice or otherwise made aware of the prothonotary's summons. That question has been removed by two affidavits which have been placed before the Court today. The affidavit of Mr Christopher Clark states that on 19 July 1988 the summons was served on Mr Giles in Canberra. Mr Giles was called outside the court today. He 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS did not appear. it is clear from the affidavit of Mr Clark and from another affidavit of Miss Christine Johnpulle that both Mr Giles and his solicitor (Mr Higgins) are fully aware of these proceedings. Mr Higgins became involved because he was advising Mr Giles in proceedings which are current in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for the purpose of restoring the name of Mr Giles to the roll of barristers and solicitors of that Court. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has heard the application. It was opposed by the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. That Court has reserved its decision. That decision is not available to us. The proceedings in the Australian Capital Territory, if successful, may later become relevant to an application by Mr Giles to be restored to the roll of solicitors of this Court. However, that possibility should not stay the hand of this Court from ordering his removal from its roll. We defend the public and maintain the high standards of the legal profession, cause being shown, by ordering the removal of the name of a person shown to warrant that course. The grounds for the removal are the order previously mentioned of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the facts mentioned in the judgment of that Court, and the acknowledgement made by Mr Giles on the fourth day of the hearing that his name should be removed from the roll of barristers and solicitors of the Court. Should Mr Giles be restored to the roll in the Australian Capital Territory, and should he make an application to this Court, such application will be determined on its merits and by the standards of this Court, having regard to the material placed before it by Mr Giles and his evidence of fitness to be restored. The orders which I therefore propose are: 1. That the name of Charles Filgate Giles be removed from the roll of solicitors of the Court. 2. That the costs of the prothonotary of and incidental to the proceedings before the Court be paid by the said Charles Filgate Giles. Samuels AP I agree. McHugh JA I agree. KIRBY ACJ: They are the orders of the Court. ORDERS 1. That the name of Charles Filgate Giles be removed from the roll of solicitors of the Court. 2. That the costs of the prothonotary of and incidental to the proceedings before the Court be paid by the said Charles Filgate Giles. COUNSEL: Claimant: MRS A BENNETT Opponent: SOLICITORS: Claimant: H K ROBERTS (STATE CROWN SOLICITOR) Opponent: